CHAPTER - 7

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

7.1 Conclusion

In criminal proceedings, an acceptance of command of crime by a suspected

person is proved against him, is known as Confession. On the other hand, an
admission generally relates to civil transaction comprising all the statements given in
circumstances of the sections 18,19 and 20. The voluntarily and deliberately obtained
Confessions might be recognized as decisive to resolve the matters and on the other
hand, a matter admitted admissions are never decisive to elect the fact, but it may act
as estoppels. Under the Section 21 of India law of Evidence provides that an
admission of a person may be used it for his own benefit. Confessions made by co-
suspect may be proved in contradiction of other co-suspect when they are being
jointly tried to similar offence1.

The written or oral statement given by defendant is admissible which shows

the obligation of person making admissions, and Confessions is statement made by
defendant in printed or uttered form which is considered as shortest admissibility of
suit. The acknowledgement or admission of the guilt is one of the significant tools
through which the culpability of suspect is fetched into home. The voluntary
confession has a great importance in criminal administration. In this way, admission
has been demarcated in section 17 of Indian law of Evidence and confession has not
been demarcated in this act, but confession is direct admission of guilt. The law of
admission and confession have been defined from section 17 to 31 of this act and
voluntary and true confession are permissible and basis of conviction. Admission is
exception to hearsay evidence.

The English has fully established the rule of voluntariness of confession.

Voluntary acknowledgments of fact may be made by the party or his agents or
referred person or by the person in certain relationships or by conduct in suit or in a
proceeding or in other way, is an admission. An admission is exception to hearsay
rule and voluntary acknowledgments are admissible at common law. But after

1
Supra Chapter 3 at 117

185
enactment of the civil evidence act, first- hand hearsay admissions are admissible and
permissible2.

Voluntary confessions are admissible in common law and later on, statutory
law has been presented in 2003 which preserves the rule of voluntary confession
including the grounds. If, there is acceptance of all element of a crime, it is a
confession, but if there is acceptance of any one element of crime, it is an admission.
The voluntariness is the basis for acceptability of confession in the Law of U.S.A. The
enactment of 4th amendment of the constitution of U.S. is against the illegal searches
and illegal seizures and later on, “Due Process” clause has created procedural
safeguard in interrogation3.

The most important branch for the concept of fair trial is the Indian law of
evidence which provides the grounds for the trials which are probably immeasurably
lengthy to the dandy detrimental of the public as well as disbursal of litigants and the
vexation. This can be helpful to the jury to separate out the wheat from the chaff
among the mass of facts and elements that has been brought in front of them, it assists
them to make verdict upon their mutual and just heading, to weigh the value of direct
testimony and learns to draw correct inferences from circumstances. Accordant to this
guidance, it enables for jury to tread his way safely among the burning plough shares
of forgery, bearing false witness as well as fiddle that beset his footstep and to rest his
judgment on a basis of chances at least comparatively satisfying to his self-
incrimination. The reason behind the rejection of some confessional statements that
there is always a risk if the confession was no-voluntary then may be accused falsely
entail him. There are a number of rules utilized by different countries in various ways
for governing the admissibility of confessions.

The Indian law of evidence codifies the rules of English law of evidence with
such alteration as are well advised essentially by the particular circumstances of our
country. Main objective of the Indian law of evidence is to forbid carelessness in the
admissibility of evidence and to establish more uniform and correct rules in practice.
The Indian law of evidence does not intend to do more rules than prescribed rules for
the admissibility or otherwise of evidence on the issues as to which the courts have to

2
Supra Chapter 5 at 181
3
Supra Chapter 4 at 140

186
record findings. After examining the different cases and reviewing the idea of eminent
authors that it has been advised to enact a proper law.

The article 20(3) of the Constitution of the India grants protection to accused
against testimonial compulsion and uphold the rule of the voluntariness. The law
makers have written about the feasible peril of his testimony, so the legislative
assembly at the same time act on it while enacting the different law. The section 114
illus. (b) of the Indian law of evidence might be a possible danger accordant,
therefore, the real position of law is that the testimony of an accomplice, cannot be
decided wholly either on the basis of section 133, or 114 (b) by taking into
consideration but these provisions and the sections 306 to 308 of the Indian law of
criminal procedure protect the accused and his statement cannot be used against him.

It was decided by the Apex Court in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.,4 that
the statement does not include what is not said. No statement is given by the accused
in lie detector test and Brain mapping, so it is out of the purview of protection
guaranteed in constitution under Article 20(3). However, Narco-analysis is concerned,
a person to whom „truth-serum‟ is administered undoubtedly makes a statement. The
prominent judge, Mr. Justice Holmes of U.S. Supreme Court comments that some
criminals might get away from punishment due as procedures are important to the
survival of our well high treasured Constitutional rights. A man‟s home is not his
castle and his property is not his own. The enforcement of law is watchfully
protecting against the abuse in different forms as proven by assorted decisions of
Supreme Court. Jurisprudentially speaking, an innocent may not be punished even a
guilty to be released declared by granting benefits of distrust. The right to expression
of thoughts and convictions is not to be Jeopardized if the search and arrest are
affected through illegal procedure on which the confession is illegally recorded. The
illustration can be held from Brown v. Mississippi5 which is an authority on the use of
compulsion for obtaining confession in the American Law.

The Constitution of India, The Indian law of evidence and Criminal Procedure
of Indian show concerns with such matters. The Supreme Court and the High Court
should act as watch-dogs for the shield of fundamental rights of the people which are

4
Supra Chapter 4 at 140
5
Supra Chapter 4 at 148

187
supreme to all irrespective of all religion, caste, creed, race etc. To be forfeited or
personnel liberty be curtailed on confessions, it does not only make the mockery of
the Constitutional guarantees but also the constitutional requirements or procedure
established by law as a meaningless symbol. The confession may be judicial which is
made before court or it may be extra judicial, which is made out of court. The
Judiciary have a great role in the dealing of the extrajudicial confessions.

The term “confession” has not been explicated in the Indian law of evidence,
but the explanation revealed by the Privy Council in Pakala Narayan Swami6 case,
that had been accepted for seven decades earlier still keeps good that case the
confessions are admission of guiltiness by the suspect. In another rapports the offence
either admission or at any charges significantly all the elements which comprise the
crime is a acknowledgement. While separating the exculpatory from the exculpatory
portion of the statement, the admission as a whole must satisfy the requirement of
admitting considerably all the elements constituting the offensive activity. The section
24 to 30 of the Indian law of evidence express, in short, that the exculpatory
declaration must have been given by the accused and it must essentially be trustful
and the out of free will of the accused. To fulfil the earlier requirement, the confession
must be free from any influence of the promises, danger and temptation.
Consequently, confessions made before the Law enforcement agency has been
statutorily declared as inadmissible in evidence.
This study is important for the research because it shows the comparison of
the concept of exclusion or inclusion of the confessions and admission among the
Indian, United Kingdom and American or the exclusion of different evidences which
are extorted by police by using inhuman techniques or in custodial torture among
these countries. In the developed nations like the USA and the UK, there are rights of
individual having superiority and there is no legal bar contrary to the reception of
confessional statements obtained by the police as an evidence. The rule of exclusion is
introduced in American courts in the starting of 19th century but on other hand, the
Indian law of Evidence has been introduced in 1872 and at that time, section 24 of the
Indian law of evidence contains the rule of exclusion. A confession obtained by
menace and inducement etc. is not acceptable, but it will not be appropriate to equate
the situation existing in other countries to that in India.

6
Supra Chapter 3 at 61

188
 It‟s impossible to ignore the authentic reality. It is incontrovertible fact that the
law enforcement agency in India rout to earthy ways of interrogation and in rural
areas many agonize to the scarcity of training equipment, inadequate personnel and
professional independence. In the perspective of scientific investigation, the law
enforcement agency has been suffering for long time. These characteristics on the
whole, are not so extensive in those countries. The framers of the Indian law of
Evidence always had trouble in their mind regarding the exclusion of confessions
from the police.

When the police officers arrest the accused and he is in their custody, as a
matter of fact it is well accomplished law that if once safekeeping of law enforcement
agency has been taken and then gives the encharge of accused to any other person
where that will not provide the confession has been suffered, is acceptable. The
defendant shall be held to be still in police safekeeping, and defendant in care of a
private individual does not stop his safekeeping. Hence, the assessmentis that at the
time of making an additional judicial confession, their motions are restrained by the
law enforcement agency either by themselves or by another organization hired by
them for the determination of safekeeping of this confession.

The Indian law of evidence has accepted a couple of exclusions of English

law of Evidence. It is not exceptional for the court to take the help of English law of
Evidence in case of ambiguity. It is not applicable like Administrative judicature ,
Industrial judicature and non-judicial legal proceeding just like presenting affidavits,
departmental enquiry to Court etc. Both the Civil and Criminal proceedings employ
by Indian law of Evidence, however some sections are applicable only to Civil or
Criminal. The burden of proofs is on the prosecution to afford the guilt of the accused
in this law. In criminal proceeding, the offence must be proved against accused
beyond all reasonable doubts. Notwithstanding the corresponding Statutes of Criminal
Procedure and the Civil Procedure, it is a supreme item. For the satisfaction of the
courts, it is the responsibility of the party to prove the substance of issues and the
burden of proof is on the shoulders of party.

The Objective of this law is to get the veracity of the various undecided facts
or points in issues. The law of admissions and confessions are confusing to draw the
distinction. The concept has a great role to maintain balance between the interest of

189
society and the interest of individual by preventing the abuse of police by upholding
the spirit of law of land. The entire provisions of admissions and confessions of India
have been discussed and we not only the circumstances which create confusions but
also compared the law of admissions and confessions in England and America.

7.2 Suggestions

The failure to update and oldness of the Indian law of evidence, according to
the demand of time, have destroyed the Constitutional rights of people. The
Constitution of India guarantees the freedoms to the sovereign people of India. It is
duty to analyse minutely how freedoms are abused and misused to uphold the anarchy
and violence in the country and it results to infringement of freedom of our peace-
loving people. For protection of these rights, there is need of apprise and proper law
as to balance between administration of justice and individual rights which was
properly maintained in England. So, our laws of evidence require to review,
modification and liberalization specifically in the law of admissions and confessions
as the need of time.

No law is significant and important for indefinite time and every law should
be carefully examined from time to time for improving and correcting on every point
because no law is eternal. The practice has exposed that every law requires
development and modification. For the good and simple law, it must be modified as
regularly as a number of such cases are decided upon. It is pertinent to mention that
Sir James Stephen, Architecture of the Indian law of Evidence admits that the
relevancy of Indian law of evidence is only for limited period. In this regard, Law
Commission and several Committees offer suggestion for development and
modification of the law of admissions and confessions as a number of such cases are
decided upon.
The section 18 of Indian law of evidence requires change in expression,
substances and in structure. The word “proceeding” in this section must be substituted
with the word civil proceeding to remove doubts of its use. The section 20 of the
Indian law of evidence describes as admissions by person who is referred by the party
to suit. The word “suit” is not exact and defined in its sense, so, it might be replaced
by the civil proceeding for removing the uncertainty. The content of documents is not
evidenced by uttered evidence, however section 22 of the Indian law of evidence
describes that it can be proved by oral evidence. Acceptance of verbal admission in

190
respect of document are dangerous and it is misused to accomplish the lacuna of
cases. The section 23 of the Indian law of evidence describes that no admission is
relevant when the parties are agreed not to give evidence of particular fact. An
admission made by the parties in the course of conciliation of a settlement or
compromise of a dispute, should not be entertained in proceeding, so this provision
must be ratified according to the demand of time which seems the most appropriate in
its application.
The ssection 24 of the Indian law of evidence must be wider as to save the
accused or suspect from police harassment and the world famous and well-known
philosopher, Berteand Russell has observed that the presence of police is inherently
dangerous. It is universal phenomenon that the conviction in criminal case is a main
aim of law enforcement agency and for that end, the law enforcement agency torture
arrested persons until the confession. This dander occurs in all countries in different
form in different degree. It is widespread in India by the law enforcement agency In
India to receive a confession, so the confession to law enforcement agency should not
be accepted as evidence in any circumstances. So, some more situations or words like
compulsion, fierceness or torment or fear etc. should be added in section 24 of this act
as to save suspect from brutality of law enforcement agency officers, so there is
necessity to modify this provision.
That is why no confession made to police officers is relevant as per section 25
of the Indian law of evidence. However, a confession made to higher police officer
should be made admissible like in England and some other countries but it is not
essential because all other record prepared by police is believed and on which case
goes on. So, no need to add it in this section. The technology of the world is
increasing and new methods and instruments are used to destroy the will of a accused
or suspect or prisoners. A difficult and delicate task is performed by police to
maintain law and order and hardcore criminals have taken roots in the society, so a
balanced opinion is required to deal the end of justice.
The section 26 of the Indian law of evidence describes the word “immediate
presence of Magistrate” which must be substituted by the procedure of section 164 of
the Indian law of criminal procedure as to protect the right of suspect and his
harassment. It creates more reliability and certainty of the voluntariness of confession.
In the U.S.A. and U.K, if any confession and statement lead to discovery, it is
found involuntarily, it may be rejected by the court by exercising the discretionary

191
power. The section 27 of the Indian law of evidence is generally misused by police to
implicate innocent persons in a false case by false recovery. So, section 27 of the
Indian law of evidence should be made wider as to stop the misuse of it. The facts
disconcerted by using any threat, coercion, violence or torture or fear etc. shall not be
accepted, must be added in this section so that misuse of it can be barred, so there is
necessity to modify this provision

The section 28 of the Indian law of evidence should also be made wider by
using some more situations like compulsion, torment, fierceness etc. The section 29 of
the Indian law of evidence also requires some improvement as there is no clarification
in respect of confession recorded in violation of section 164 (2) of the Indian law of
criminal procedure. It describes that the judge shall clarify to suspect that he is not
bound to make a confession and it will be used against him, if he confesses. So, it may
be declared that a confession documented in violation of section 164 Cr.P.C shall not
be permissible.

These sections also require improvement and modification to upholding the

individual‟s right. In India, narco-analysis is used only to receive evidence for helping
the investigation agency as it cannot be taken against a suspect as it violates the article
20 (3) of the Constitution of India. So, it is suggested that by protecting the rights of a
suspect, there must be a balanced approach in this regard and it should be used as last
resort for obtaining the evidence when other sources are exhausted. In French, a
magistrate is posted in each police station as officer in charge to investigate the
heinous and serious crime. So, it is suggested that this step should be taken
immediately to improve the working of law enforcement agency and protection of
individual right for end of justice. Politician sponsored action of police are not
infrequently abused in the country, so it is need of time to improve colonial law for
upholding Constitution spirits and tenets in this law.

In the precise, the main observation enlightened through this research is that
there is need to review and modification of the concept of the law of admissions and
confession due to their inadequacy. It is expected that the suggestion of this research
work will be taken into consideration while widening, reviewing and modifying the
provisions of the law of admissions and confessions in India.

192